House bill would end runoffs after primaries

Published: Friday, April 19, 2013 at 01:20 PM.

RALEIGH — A group of Republican lawmakers want to rid the state of costly runoffs that usually draw fewer than 10 percent of North Carolina voters.

A House bill would allow the top-vote getter to win the primary no matter what. Currently, a candidate needs at least 40 percent of the vote to win a primary outright. Otherwise, the top two candidates go to a runoff.

The bill's lead sponsor said he's open to alternatives to scrapping the entire system, but the current setup drains millions without advancing democratic participation.

"What I want to do is highlight the absurdity of crowning someone the winner who got fewer votes than the lowest finisher in the (first) primary," said Rep. Dennis Riddell, R-Alamance. He's joined by three other Republican sponsors.

North Carolina is one of nine states that conduct runoffs for most races if a primary victor doesn't exceed a certain threshold, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of those states, all but North Carolina require a majority to advance immediately to the general election. South Dakota holds runoffs only for top offices involving three or more candidates, but the winner needs only 35 percent of the vote to win outright.

This isn't the first time state leaders have called for changes to the primary system. Turnout in the 2012 primaries hit 35 percent but fell to less than 4 percent in runoffs that cost the state more than $7 million. Some precincts didn't have a single voter.

In 2010, 4.5 percent of registered voters turned out for a runoff featuring a U.S. Senate race and several congressional contests. In 2008, a runoff with one statewide race and two legislative contests fell short of 2 percent of registered voters.

Costs of runoffs depend on the number of races, but a statewide election will cost a minimum of $5 million, said Gary Bartlett, director of the State Board of Elections. He said turnout has ranged from 2.5 percent to 8 percent in his 20 years on the job.

Other methods have been tried. A 2010 primary for a North Carolina Court of Appeals seat was decided by instant runoff, which asked primary voters to rank their choices on the ballot. After determining which two candidates captured the most first-choice votes, election boards went through the rest looking for ballots naming the top finishers as a second or third alternate. Seven weeks later, the winning candidate turned out to be the one who trailed after the first round of counting.

The State Board of Elections took some criticism over the transparency of the count, but Bartlett said mixed reactions from voters who found the system confusing doomed the idea.

"I can tell you the process worked, but it has to be accepted by all," he said, adding that it saved significantly in costs from labor and ballot reprinting.

David McLennan, a professor of political science at William Peace University, said the current system favors well-financed or establishment candidates who can afford what becomes three campaign cycles. That makes it harder to get major reform through the legislature, but a recent bipartisan measure that would save money by consolidating precincts in runoffs has a chance, he said.

"I wouldn't be surprised if this were to die in committee or be subsequently amended, but I can't see amending it toward an instant runoff situation," he said.

Randy Voller, chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, said Republicans need to seek more input, because abolishing the 40-percent threshold could lead to radical candidates without broad support eking out victories in races with wide fields.

"In theory, these kind of rules could bring us even more extreme and reactionary candidates, because you could have six or seven fairly moderate Republicans running but one David Duke-type candidate could get 15 percent and win," he said. "Is that really what North Carolina wants?"

Michael Munger, a former Libertarian candidate for governor who teaches at Duke University, said theoretical objections don't stack up against the reality of incredibly low samples sizes with high taxpayer costs.

"You're paying a lot of extra money for a result that is even worst," he said. "It's easy to make theoretical objections, but if you had to pick, this (new bill) is the better option," he said.

Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published
without permission. Links are encouraged.

RALEIGH — A group of Republican lawmakers want to rid the state of costly runoffs that usually draw fewer than 10 percent of North Carolina voters.

A House bill would allow the top-vote getter to win the primary no matter what. Currently, a candidate needs at least 40 percent of the vote to win a primary outright. Otherwise, the top two candidates go to a runoff.

The bill's lead sponsor said he's open to alternatives to scrapping the entire system, but the current setup drains millions without advancing democratic participation.

"What I want to do is highlight the absurdity of crowning someone the winner who got fewer votes than the lowest finisher in the (first) primary," said Rep. Dennis Riddell, R-Alamance. He's joined by three other Republican sponsors.

North Carolina is one of nine states that conduct runoffs for most races if a primary victor doesn't exceed a certain threshold, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Of those states, all but North Carolina require a majority to advance immediately to the general election. South Dakota holds runoffs only for top offices involving three or more candidates, but the winner needs only 35 percent of the vote to win outright.

This isn't the first time state leaders have called for changes to the primary system. Turnout in the 2012 primaries hit 35 percent but fell to less than 4 percent in runoffs that cost the state more than $7 million. Some precincts didn't have a single voter.

In 2010, 4.5 percent of registered voters turned out for a runoff featuring a U.S. Senate race and several congressional contests. In 2008, a runoff with one statewide race and two legislative contests fell short of 2 percent of registered voters.

Costs of runoffs depend on the number of races, but a statewide election will cost a minimum of $5 million, said Gary Bartlett, director of the State Board of Elections. He said turnout has ranged from 2.5 percent to 8 percent in his 20 years on the job.

Other methods have been tried. A 2010 primary for a North Carolina Court of Appeals seat was decided by instant runoff, which asked primary voters to rank their choices on the ballot. After determining which two candidates captured the most first-choice votes, election boards went through the rest looking for ballots naming the top finishers as a second or third alternate. Seven weeks later, the winning candidate turned out to be the one who trailed after the first round of counting.

The State Board of Elections took some criticism over the transparency of the count, but Bartlett said mixed reactions from voters who found the system confusing doomed the idea.

"I can tell you the process worked, but it has to be accepted by all," he said, adding that it saved significantly in costs from labor and ballot reprinting.

David McLennan, a professor of political science at William Peace University, said the current system favors well-financed or establishment candidates who can afford what becomes three campaign cycles. That makes it harder to get major reform through the legislature, but a recent bipartisan measure that would save money by consolidating precincts in runoffs has a chance, he said.

"I wouldn't be surprised if this were to die in committee or be subsequently amended, but I can't see amending it toward an instant runoff situation," he said.

Randy Voller, chairman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, said Republicans need to seek more input, because abolishing the 40-percent threshold could lead to radical candidates without broad support eking out victories in races with wide fields.

"In theory, these kind of rules could bring us even more extreme and reactionary candidates, because you could have six or seven fairly moderate Republicans running but one David Duke-type candidate could get 15 percent and win," he said. "Is that really what North Carolina wants?"

Michael Munger, a former Libertarian candidate for governor who teaches at Duke University, said theoretical objections don't stack up against the reality of incredibly low samples sizes with high taxpayer costs.

"You're paying a lot of extra money for a result that is even worst," he said. "It's easy to make theoretical objections, but if you had to pick, this (new bill) is the better option," he said.